I am going to speak about a very specific period of 20th century
architectural history, the Fascist, the Nazi and the so-called social
realism, the official style of communistic countries. Contrary to its name,
this style was neither properly social, nor entirely realistic. It was more
a fiction, than reality. It utilised the realist cultural paradigm of 19th
century Western Europe, as the early Soviet Union was in a similar period of
modernisation. (Gründerzeit) But in very many respects social realism was
still a genuinely 20th century movement. This duality contributed to its
post-modernist character. No wonder, the West discovered it during the early
post-modernist period. Aldo Rossi was probably the first, who praised
Stalinist architecture of East Berlin.

Before devoting our attention to social realism I would like to give you a
broader framework of the architecture of this period.

For quite a long time, students have been taught of modernism as the only
option, as the only relevant architecture of the period between the two
world wars. Nothing is so far from the truth: early modernism made up a tiny
section of the overall building activities of the period. Tel Aviv and
Israel in general are rare exceptions, due to the special relation of the
Jews towards architectural modernism.

Why was modernism so poorly received in Europe? Modernism was too
avant-garde, too liberal for the majority of political establishments of
that time and also later. No wonder, that after World War Two, when
modernism became the official style of the welfare states, it already lost
partly its charm, leftist fervour and creative impetus, becoming a routine.

States, democratic and totalitarian alike, preferred more hierarchic and
traditional expressions, ranging from French déco up to Fascist (probably
the best totalitarian style), Stalinist and Nazi architecture.

In this lecture I am dealing mostly with social realism, because it was the
first and the longest totalitarian architecture and probably theoretically
better founded than its competitors, having the most specific social
background.

Movements between World War One and Two — Modernism proper
and conservative paradigms:

Socialist Realism was a guideline of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
for literature, fine arts, music and film, issued on 23.4.1932, as part of
the statute of the association of soviet writers. It aimed at founding the
arts on the realist paradigm of the 19th century, but subjected to ideology
and aims delineated by the communist party. Thus, it did not depict the real
world, but a utopia by means of realist representation. Social realism ended
with Stalin's death theoretically, in practice it lasted much longer. Even
in the 1960s arts and architecture in the former eastern block had a special
flavour.

As a broader phenomenon, however, social realism is not confined to the
Soviet despotism. It is a phenomenon accompanying societies in fast change,
societies in their early phase of development, like the Australian or in a
certain extent early Israeli society as well. It is an attempt to move
people, to mobilise their forces — the broad masses — by art, literature,
painting, and sculpture; in some case architecture also. Social Realism is
often politically coloured, fundamentalist in its expression and sometimes
populist.

The reason that I am dealing with it is not a longing for the lost Soviet
Paradise, but to show you a special connection between architecture and the
state, public and architecture. Social Realism in architecture is also
important, because it has been a constitutive part of 20th century
architectural history and in terms of formal language, a precursor of
Postmodernism. I shall speak only about social realism proper, i.e. about
the communistic type.

In formal terms social realism is not an unprecedented phenomenon in 20th
century architecture, but an important ring in the chain of anti-modern,
anti-avant-garde, neo-classical movements.

Social realism in the context of 20th century architecture

1900 WW 1 WW 2 1968 1989 2000

l’art nouveau early modernism late modernism neo-avant-guarde

pre-modern Classicism social realism postmodern classicism

According this scheme — that is a simplification, of course, — twentieth
century architecture might be conceived basically as a two channel
development having periods an regions in which classical-historical forms
dominated and some others in which modernist, avant-garde expressions took
the leading role. In reality, however, the situation was much more complex.
There were numerous nuances even between the two basic types, as for
instance, the Italian Rationalismo that was modern and classicist in the
same time — perhaps a bit more classicist than modern. Furthermore, there
have been other streams out of the modern-classical opposition, as for
instance all organic movements starting with Frank Lloyd Wright and ending
with contemporary organic attempts; techno-centric movements as Russian
Constructivism, high tech from the 1970s up to now; etc.

Nevertheless, by and large the dual scheme helps to understand the problem
of classical and modern in twentieth century architecture. By the end of the
19th century late eclecticism represented the classical, l’art nouveau the
avant-garde, proto-modern classicism again the classical, early modern the
avant-garde, social realism the classical, post-modern again the classical,
and finally Deconstruction the avant-garde.

The Socialist Realism in Architecture

Social realism in architecture was a very specific style. I am labelling it
as a style, as it has had its specific architectural language — a kind of
neo-classicism —, and very often a certain space conception of its own. Both
were deeply rooted in the Communistic ideology.

Social Realism in art and architecture meant a certain reference to the
realistic paradigm, as a contrary of the Modern. The aim was to develop an
expression in arts that would be easily understandable for the broad masses
— or as they put it — for the society of peasants and workers. The latter
were more precious to the communist party than the former, as the workers
were supposedly more enlightened, being free from the old patriarchal
relations and thinking. In fact, the workers class was a bit more dependent
on the establishment in the lack of any kind of private property and the
possibility to earn money besides official channels. However, after the
introduction of communism, peasants were also loosing their property in many
communistic countries, due to the collectivisation of agriculture becoming
also fully dependent on the state.

Nevertheless, social realism is not simply a return to the pre-modern,
pre-industrial paradigm. Social realism was a curious mixture of feudalism
and industrialism. In its ideology it was closer to feudalism — the
limitation of individual freedom (freedom of movement: people were denied to
travel abroad, in the Soviet Union there was even a ‘passport’ needed to
leave one’s residence; freedom of possession of real estate, etc.), curbing
the market — sometimes destroying market economy entirely, introducing an
absurd guild system. In its practice — the way of production of goods,
however, the social realistic society, or the society of real socialism, was
more modern, i.e. industrial, although on a very low technological level.

The aforementioned split between ideology and practice is particularly
visible in architecture. Namely, while arts, literature is less related to
technology, architecture is a direct expression of industrial production and
craftsmanship, of the level of technology in thinking and everyday practice.

Although social realism was officially in power in the whole East-European
block — the military alliance called the Warsaw Pact —, it differed from
country to country. These differences were due to the different historical
circumstances. For instance, Russia was a backward country in terms of
industrial development, East Germany, the so-called Deutsche Demokratische
Republic was before World War Two part of a highly developed industrial
country. The differences in expression were also ideologically coloured: a
fully-fledged internationalism was not allowed. It would have meant
cosmopolitanism, an element of the modern paradigm that was completely
refused. Thus, social realistic art was a bit national, in order to suit
national particularities of Bulgaria, Estonia, Czechoslovakia or Hungary,
but it was, nonetheless, also slightly international — or better to say,
supra-national —, as it expressed the same ‘socialist’ values. According to
the slogan, social realism is in its content social, in its form national.

In architecture, form meant architectural language, of course. Content was
the function, both the material one and the metaphysical one. According to
this scheme space conception, bearing structure was mainly common,
architectural language differed from country to country, but always in a
classicist framework.

Thus, in the eastern block different expressions evolved;
each of them was a bit rooted in the national heritage:

� Soviet social realism was grounded in Russian
folkish or narodniki tradition, in the Russian penchant for decoration and
predilection for monumental Classicism, which resulted in the so-called
Stalinist Baroque.

� The Hungarian social realism was related to
the Hungarian late Baroque and early neo-classicism that was equally
understandable for the common countrymen, nobleman and citizens alike.

� In Eastern Germany social realism embodied a
bit the stern Prussian architectural heritage of Berlin, the Schinkelesque
tradition of the Museuminsel. In urban terms the Siegesallee-spirit was
reflected in the Karl-Marx-Allee, etc.

In terms of time it is not easy to locate social realism in the countries of
the Warsaw Pact. It started with the onset of Stalinism in the Soviet Union,
got into Eastern and Central Europe after World War Two, in some countries
as early as 1945, in some others after 1948, following the instalment of
Russian Style Communism. In practice it started there in the early 1950s.
Its end is also uncertain. Officially after the death of Stalin in 1953
social realism came to an end, in practice, however, it lasted until the
mid-1950s. Namely, although Chrushtiov in his famous speech in 1954
condemned Stalin’s ideology and practices, announcing a new turn in soviet
policy that was expected to result in a take-over of the United States by
the communist countries, many buildings were already in construction at that
time, numerous projects were approved and on the way to realisation. In some
countries, like for instance in Romania, where Stalinist spirit survived
until the 1980s, some kind a social realism also endured. President
Ciacescu's governmental buildings represent a strange mixture of 'Stalinist
Baroque', French grandeur, Byzantine Christian Orthodox and Balkan heritage
as well as modernism.

Social realism was the first reintroduction of the Classical language after
Modernism, if we disregard Italian Rationalism and German Nazi architecture,
that were not really classical — at least compared with social realism.
Thus, social realism was probably the first real simulacra in 20th century
architecture, much before Postmodernism. The parallel between postmodernism
and social realism excites many researchers, including me. After the slides
I expect your discussion.

Social Realistic Architecture in Hungary

Inner contradictions characterised Hungarian architecture during the years
1945-1956. Following the defeat of World War II and under increasing Soviet
influence, Hungary moved gradually towards a one-party dictatorship, in
which political, economical and cultural matters came under the total
control of the Communist Party.

New building programs as opposed to restoration became the catch cry of
architects working towards the rebuilding of war-torn Hungary until
communist dictatorship was established in 1948. Between 1944-48 Hungary had
the opportunity to cultivate modernism freely, as before World War Two the
conservative government opposed it, and modernism was restricted to the
private initiative. The profession was relived from the restrictions of
historic stylistic conventions, which had been responsible for shaping the
face of many buildings constructed between the wars. Even more so, for the
majority of architects, this meant the embracing of the principles of Modern
architecture, namely the unity of structure, function and form as conceived
by the Bauhaus tradition. Several architects had been closely involved with
these principles in the inter-war period, but only in the defiance of the
official Neo-Baroque style that expressed the views and values of the
rightist government in the 1920s and 1930s. Thus, after 1945 architects were
finally free of state patronage in their choice of architectural style.
However, this freedom did not last long.

After the relief from the rightist regime, Hungary soon had to experience
the other extreme, communism determined by the presence of the Red Army,
that facilitated the leftist political take over.

According to the Hungarian Communist Party the essential features of
Socialist development in the Soviet Union represented universal tenets. As
such, there was no possibility of a „national" road to Socialism,
consequently Socialist-Realist Art followed the example of a universal
typology. Essentially, Socialist Realism as a technique existed to validate
and legitimise a system which functioned in a Messianistic and Teleological
way.

This is not to say that within these boundaries original and inventive
responses were excluded.

As a concept, Socialist Realism first appeared in Hungary within the field
of literature, principally in the figure of György Lukács. As early as 1946
there were references to the danger of a pact between a Marxist ideological
monopoly on the arts and a dictatorship in politics. This danger became
evident at a later stage within the field of architecture. Primarily its
appearance can be tied to the dissolution of private planning offices and
their subsequent replacement by large state-controlled planning institutes.
A demand for a turn in architecture away from those cosmopolitan (read
modern) principles which served „Imperialism" did not occur until 1951 and
was the product of numerous disputes and conferences. It is important to
remember here that it was only in 1948 that the Hungarian Workers Party
achieved full control of the country.

Those architects wishing to build found it necessary to follow the
prescribed route. Vulgarised Marxism provided architecture with a
theoretical framework. Dichotomies of content and form, base and
superstructure, reality and reflection (Stalin: Letters of Language, 1950)
became the catchwords of architects. This spirituality brought about the
already mentioned slogan of architecture as socialist in content and
national in form. The latter should be understood as the free adaptation of
forms from l9th century international Neo-classicism, which was not without
some national characteristics. This expression was then repeated/echoed with
varying degrees of sincerity and authenticity within that relatively short
period (a little more than five years).

Curiously the best buildings of this period were the ones which deviated
from the above conventions, exemplified in the building E of the Technical
University in Budapest.

Some of the more major programs embarked upon and partially realised during
this period include:

· the rebuilding of Budapest, intended as the centre of power, the „citadel
of the victorious proletariat”. (Communist regimes always favoured the
capital cities, that became showcases, while provincial towns and villages
were grossly neglected.)

· Sztálinváros (Stalin Town): the paradigm of socialist town-planning in
Hungary. Analogous with the earthy version of „The Heavenly City” applying
the principle of Representation.

· The Underground Railway Network in Budapest. Closer examination of the
above-ground stations (of which only one was completed) reveal that applied
decorative nature of Socialist Realist architectural style. The form of the
underground stations stems primarily from the fact that these stations also
performed a secondary role as air raid shelters, capable of withstanding 500
kiloton bombs.

The buildings of this epoch remain standing today, some, of them degraded.
Observing their semiotic character in the light of history, it is clear that
these buildings were called into being as legitimisers of Absolutist Power.
In a way this is related to the Baroque time absolutism.

SZTÁLINVÁROS — THE PARADIGM OF SOCIALIST TOWN PLANNING IN HUNGARY

Dunaújváros (Between 1951–1961 was named as
Sztálinváros which means Stalin City) is a city in Central Hungary, along
the Danube (Hungarian name: Duna) river. It is in the county of Fejér.

"... the new Socialist ideology is expressed in every urban-form (in
Sztálinváros). "

Tibor Weiner, 1951

Sztálinváros was described by its chief architect, Tibor Weiner, as follows:

„ ... the greatest creation of our five year plan... and at the same time
the first attempt to build a new socialist town on virgin soil".

Based on Soviet experience and in particular on Comrade Stalin's directives
for urban-planning in Moscow, Weiner summarised the basic principles of
town-planning in three points:

� There are no „inner" and „outer" quarters... The democratic nature of the
socialist system is manifested in the fact that all parts of the town are of
equal quality. [This sharply contradicted to the reality, the neglect of
peripheral regions in cities and in the country as a whole. Curiously this
‘isotropicity’ of urban space got realised in the hatred capitalistic world,
in Los Angeles, for instance.]

� 2 The „Town" and the „Industrial estate" are two poles of an organic
unity: the

„ Town-centre and the main entrance to the Factory should stand in an
immediate relationship to one another."

[With that Weiner established a kind of via sacra between the industrial
zone and residential area. This axis contradicted the previously mentioned
isotropic nature of space, that had to express social equality. The function
of this via sacra was similar to the Cardo of Heavenly Jerusalem — the main
difference is that in this town not Christ communicated but the celebrated
(in fact: oppressed) ‘workers class’, exemplified in May Day Processions,
October Processions — the remembrance of the victorious October Revolution
in Russia —, the visits of high ranking party officials and other political
events.]

� The structure and architectural solution of the city should be suitable
for all aspects of public life, ranging from the individual and family
spheres through to the largest celebrations, which draw together the entire
community. From this principles mainly the celebrations got real expression
in space ad architectural language.

Planning and construction documentation from Sztálinváros gives a insight
into characteristic contradictions between declared principles and practice,
which often saw original ideals undergo significant modifications „while at
the same time maintaining their integrity". During the planning and
construction process there was an attempt to embrace and define developments
ideologically as well as a parallel attempt to explain the improvisations
and corrections, which occurred during the construction and accommodate
these discrepancies with the original ideals. Everything had to be planned
but behind this stood the lack of planning and organisation.

Connected to the construction of Sztálinváros the Danube Steel-works (Dunai
Vasmű), was required to be in production by the end of 1953. Although
initially consisting of only a housing estate, the urbanisation of
Sztálinváros, according to Weiner, began through satisfying „the needs of
the populace". In deciding upon the site of the steel-works, a process in
which no architects were involved, relations with Yugoslavia were a crucial
factor.

At the beginning of the construction in 1950, a primary objective was the
reduction of the cost of production beyond the national average, since, for
the first time, clusters of identical housing types were to be constructed
in one location. Buildings completed in the first construction cycle
exhibited reminiscences of „Modernism". It should be mentioned that this
standardisation has had no technological background, no prefabricated
elements were used.

On the 7th of November 1951, on a local initiative the town took the name of
Stalin. Beyond the fact that a „Sztálinváros" already existed in most of the
peoples' republics, the political leadership maintained that it was with the
„personal contribution and support of Comrade Stalin that the town has come
into existence". Naming the Steel-works after Stalin was motivated also by
the totally irrational consideration that this would morally commit the
Soviet economic authorities to maintaining planning (the steel-works plans)
and delivery deadlines.

The Party Headquarters (Pártház), which represented the first element of the
Main Square (Főtér), was already standing in 1951, although the master
town-plan was only completed in the Autumn of 1952. This followed a
resolution of the Council of Ministers in April 1951 concerning the
development of Sztálinváros as a town. In relation to the expectations of
Social Realism and the propaganda, the Pártház itself was rather
insignificant. Yet it also illustrated architecturally a clear shift in a
direction, opposed to earlier modernist conventions. These expectations were
realised at a conceptual level:

„ ... the Minor Programme did not allow for design of an enormous building
which would express the power of the party in its physical dimensions. Thus,
the designer had to heighten his inner socialist enthusiasm to solve this
modest building... The intimate, inner courtyard and the on-looking corridor
provided brightly lit spaces for the workers and at the same time ensured
the feeling of secure bonds, thus symbolising the strength of the Party.”

In December 1952, the Director of the National Planning Office (Országos
Tervhivatal) outlined the master town-plan to the Committee of State Finance
(Államgazdasági Bizottság) and, in revised form, to the Politburo (Politikai
Bizottság). At this time the construction of Stalin Avenue (Sztálin út), the
major avenue connecting the main square and the factory entrance, was at an
advanced stage. This was despite the fact that the Architectural Council
(Építészeti Tanács) only evaluated the plans in the middle of 1953.

Planning Office (Tervhivatal) reported summarising that the construction of
the first socialist city in Hungary should reflect the

„superiority of the socialist economic system and the power and goals of the
working class. For these reasons, the external appearance and internal
structure of the city should express the happy life of the liberated working
class and demonstrate how the Party and the State, through the city and its
institutions, satisfies in every respect the physical and cultural needs of
the workers."

Gradually the town's structure and centre evolved.
The structural basis of Sztálinvaros was the intersection of three axes
which formed the „natural location of the town centre”. The three axes were:

1. The route from Budapest (the main transport axis of the town).

2. The avenue ending at the entrance to the steelworks (Sztálin út) (The
route for the May Day march.)

3. The route from the railway station.

This intersection should „form the most important quarter" of the town and
develop a „square-like" character. It would contain the most important
political, administrative and cultural institutions, and in addition „the
statue of Comrade Stalin, leader of the People fighting for Peace
(Béketábor) must be erected" here.

The Planning Office report dealt in detail with the most problematic aspect
of the design, the development of a vegetation-free main square. It pointed
out that the completed three-storey Party Headquarters determined the
architectural context of the square to such an extent that even a
competition organised by the Ministry of Construction (Építésügyi
Minisztérium) in May 1952 was unable to produce a successful resolution.
According to the program of the competition, the six-storey apartment
buildings under construction on Sztálin út had to be stepped down to a
two-storey height approaching the square, so as not to harm the proportions
of the Party Headquarters. Consequently, a decision was made not to respect
the height of the existing Party Headquarters. Weiner had also taken this
problem into consideration in an earlier emphasis of the importance of the
70 meters high spire of the Town Hall (Tanácsháza) within the Sztálinváros
„skyline". He explained that although the Party Headquarters opposite was
considerably smaller, the ideological content of the headquarters could not
be expressed in form or physical size. In contrast with L-shaped forms of
the Town Hall and the Palace of Culture, the Party Headquarters sought to
express its status as a central free-standing mass, in the manner of Greek
Temples. Even so, Weiner produced an alternative design in 1952 which
integrated the building within a larger unit.

The general plan and the critical reception of the time gave architectural
emphasis to the importance of the closure of the western side of the town
with a pseudo city wall - also: „ the bastion-like articulation of the
perimeter residential blocks gave a feeling of strength and security".

The design of the main square reached its peak in 1953-54. In May 1953 a
„Moscow Style" became apparent. In connection with this, the Politburo
stated their

„agreement with a solution which emphasises the tower, however it should be
proved that this should be a truly artistic creation crowning the square,
rather than something box-like". (A ‘box-like’ structure would have meant a
Bauhaus expression.)

From a functional and aesthetic point of view the massing of the elements
for the public buildings in the main square (Party Headquarters, Town Hall,
Palace of Culture, Museum etc.) was merely a „variation" game. Following
Stalin's death (5th March 1953), the conviction of Berija (July 1953) and
the election of Khrushchev as first secretary (September), plans drawn up in
late 1953 - early 1954 indicated the place previously earmarked for Stalin's
statue as occupied by the Palace of Culture.

It is worthwhile referring to the explanation, which accompanied the plans
of May 1953:

„ The main square is the centre of community life in Sztálinváros... it
should reflect the background of the town's development and should be
characteristic of the atmosphere of the town as well... The statue of
Comrade Stalin, worthy of this immortal figure... should be the central
element for the composition of the entire town... The strongest
structural-axis is represented by the route connecting the town-centre and
the factory... which appears as an 85 m wide avenue and 35 m wide landscaped
pedestrian strip complete with a row of Stakhanovists (Heroes of the
Productivity Competitions) statues... The „ high-rise " (i. e. approx. 10
storey) Town Hall ... is at the same time a memorial... it carries the ideas
of our Socialist architecture and in its symbolism expresses the state-order
of our people's democracy. In this sense the gigantic corner columns of the
tower raise an emblem depicting allegorical figures of the worker and the
peasant defending our national coat of arms above the dynamic main-cornice
to a height of over fifty meters... The Main-square... the architectural
composition of the enclosure, adopting and developing late Baroque
prototypes and forms of Hungarian folk-art... the use of segmented arches -
all form parts of an experiment. The traditional towers of church
architecture or towers of historic cities were inappropriate as sources...
because the size of the tower in Sztálinváros does not guarantee the
qualitative development which the Soviet towers give witness to (referring
to the Soviet 'skyscrapers' or 'Stalin Towers'). The giant order of corner
columns which binds together the entire tower is a purer intellectual
expression of the tower".

The opinion of the main Hungarian theoretician of architecture, Máte Major
is as follows:

„Society invests in architectural art („ superstructure" in Marxist
ideology), the task of propagating the ideology and protecting its
foundation and in accordance with the principles of monumental propaganda,
the architecture of the present should transcend previous ages in the
positive representation of society".
The basic design and structure of Sztálinváros bears the stamp of both
„ideal" and „authoritarian" urban planning. The city should have been able
to legitimise the political system that defined itself as a novelty in
history through its institutions and through its architecture. Weiner
expressed the basic expectations and criteria in respect of Sztálinváros as
follows:
„... the socialist town, the socialist people and PEACE are being
established with the wise leadership and direction of our party - and of
course with the help of the Great Soviet Union".
From an iconological point of view the Socialist City manifested or would
manifest itself through the founding of a new city which expressed the
socio-ideological goal of a „world representative of happy, liberated, human
dignity". The socialist urban vision in 1950's Hungary would have had the
„Socialist City" appear on the bank of the Danube as if it were the earthly
equivalent of St. Augustine's „Heavenly City". Social realistic architecture
in Hungary, a period of only five years, bears witness of a culture that
took architecture deadly seriously.

Examples:

� Florence railway station

� The new avenue leading to San Pietro in Rome

� The Brandenburger Tor (Gate), East Berlin and the Siegesallee (Avenue of
Victory) as inspiration for the communist Karl-Marx-Allee, Frankfurter Tor,
Karl-Marx-Allee

� Sztálinváros (competition entries, the Stalin Avenue, the House of the
Communist Party)

� University of Miskolc

� The metro network in Budapest

� Technical University in Budapest (Building "E")

� The project of Hungarian Pantheon versus Leon Krier's projects in the
early 1980s and Robert Stern's buildings.

CONCLUSION

The significance of Social Realism

The socialist realism in architecture exceeds the significance of the
communist regime or even any other totalitarianism. It raises the basic
questions, addresses the most profound dilemmas of architectural modernism
and modernisation in general.

l The question of communication with the public

The institution of the avant-garde in modernism legitimised the split
between the mainstream society and the 'smart minority' — artists,
architects and a narrow circle of sophisticated intellectuals. Bringing back
the realist paradigm social realism wanted to re-establish the lost unity.
What happened, was just the opposite to the avant-garde: The broad masses
were satisfied — at least in terms of architecture — but the former
avant-garde, the elite got alienated from art, general stagnation took over
in the arts and architecture.

The 'nurtured primitivism' for the sake of social homogenisation forced the
elite into exile or annihilated the intellectual elite entirely. Of course,
the communist society was not without an elite, but this elite was basically
uneducated or not properly educated. Actually, the communist leadership was
not entirely without intellectuals. A small fraction of ultra leftist
intelligentsia joined the communists and actually they performed an
intellectual "self-castration". Georg Lukács, the brilliant Hungarian Jewish
philosopher, who wrote sparkling essays on l'art nouveau, after World War
One, became on orthodox Marxist. (Very often Jews were the most orthodox
communists due to some analogies between the Messianism of communism and
Judaism.)

In numerous cases splits occurred among the communist leadership between the
'real proletarians' and the 'pseudo-proletarians, or even inside these
groups.

Speaking technically about the arts, it should be stressed that the basic
difference between modernism and social realism is the process of
signification and in meaning.

ll The process of signification

Modernism deconstructed the connection between literal meaning and the
concrete architectural element: the wall or post stopped signifying any
meaning (no connection between the Doric column and the human body any
more). As Jean-François Lyotard wrote about Malelewitch's squares, they
present the fact that the unpresentable exists. They make visible that there
is something, which can be conceived, and which can neither be seen nor made
visible: this is at stake in modern painting. This is the establishment of
an uncompromising monotheism of Jewish type. (A similar phenomenon occurred
in the arts connected to Zen Buddhism, that baffled the meaning.)

Social Realism is a regression in this respect. It cannot leave things
abstract, cannot simply hint, it should teach explicitly. Actually it
indoctrinates. For this sake it resorts to the 'carved image' — classical
language. Thus, it reconstructs the semiotic triangle, the firm relation
between signifier, referent and signified.

lll The meaning: certainty

Probably the most interesting achievement of social realism is not that much
the language of the arts or architecture, i.e. the signifiers, as the
signified, the meaning itself. Social realism brought back the positive
utopia, the common goal for all mankind: peace and harmony. While
modernisation undermined gradually all social ties, religious, cultural and
ethnic belonging with its constant change, differentiation and atomisation,
social realism — as many other ultra-conservative systems — not only stopped
these changes, but seemingly brought back the certainty of the 'good old
times'. Of course, social realism was not a sincere system. Rooted in the
despotic tradition of Russian orthodoxy, the groups that supposed to fight
alienation were forced — party cells in factories and large offices,
house-communities in multi-storey tenement houses. These groups exerted
control over the individuals, particularly the 'suspicious' ones. Though
open alienation was averted and certainty restored, the society was turned
into a big, all-encompassing jail. It is important to stress that this jail
existed mainly for the intellectual upper classes, which felt deprived of
intellectual freedom, the freedom of thought, the freedom to travel abroad,
etc. The real worker's class and peasants were satisfied after the terrible
days of early Stalinism. No wonder, that after the collapse of communist
regime, millions of people found themselves threatened or completely lost
with the restoration of real democracy.
In spite of the aforementioned problematic relations, these societies still
established a specific spatial milieu and architecture serving and
expressing them. (By the fall of Stalinism and the eventual fall of
communism, in particular, big changes occurred in architecture too, the
previous relative homogeneity gave place to the jungle.) One of the most
important ideas of this world was certainty.

Certainty in architecture is represented on several levels:

a) Defined, closed space

b) Symmetry

c) Re-establishing firm centres and routes

d) Massive walls

e) Historically well codified architectural elements — classicism and local
or vernacular in a reasonable mixture

n Parallels to Social Realism:

1. Postmodernism

2. The "city beautiful" movement in the US (New York Municipal building)

3. American governmental architecture in the 1950s and 1960s

4. Joseph Plecnik
Social Realism was an attempt — apart from the dictatorial appetites of the
Communist Party — to reconstruct the lost unity between architecture and
public, to bring architecture back to its previous glory when it was the
universal discourse — a scripture — like in the times of Gothic cathedrals.
Of course, social realism was destined to a failure — after the
Enlightenment and the 19th century in particular — Victor Hugo’s Notre Dame
de Paris —, architecture could never recover from its defeat by the book.

Social realism unintentionally ridicules not only Stalinism, but any other
dictatorship. After having studied Social Realism we are sensibilised to any
false monumentalism and intention for manipulation.